 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BS47
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 16
|
 Posted: October 27th, 2007 07:25 AM |
     |
|
Quote:
smithcd wrote:
I'm with cascade; clay
|
Me too. I asked this in another thread and was told the other photos were not released because they show nothing of value. I doubt that. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 09:09 AM |
|
|
yeh, why not show the other photos, who decides what we can and can't see...just creates feeling of 'what do those photos really show' paranoia...which will begin to kick in over the next few days if this keeps going on......please will someone send in some new photos of some other blurred and grainy critter that may or may not be a bigfoot...this one has been flogged to death...on that.... today I met with 2 guys, one is an experienced indigenous bushmen of about 50yrs of age, the other a doctor and bushman who has worked within the local community in this area for 30years...both have some great stories about the hairy man here...both firm believers of 'hairy man'. the indigenous guy has seen and smelt him, so has his father, and his brother and a close 'whitefella' mate literally almost ran into one when logging for timber...anyway...the indigenous guys brother has a couple of photos that he says shows a hairy man...as usual he says that they are not very clear, but with all the doohickeys you guys have used, who knows what it may reveal...anyway give me a few weeks and I'll see what I can do about getting these photos......as my mum used to say....rodney my favorite intelligent son, who's got all the looks and who will need a stick to keep the girls away when he gets older........ all you can do is ask?
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 10:57 AM |
|
|
Cascademike; BS47; smithcd; rod - the other photos only show the cubs seen in photo #1. There are only two shots of the animal in question (Sasquatch).
jonathan820's post from Oct 24 @ 2:01pm (pg 9) clearly shows the round object as being something on the ground. Not a body part.
stormbear's link found on bottom of pg 11:
(Here are the two images animated - link)
plus RossNunes on bottom of pg 4 makes the whole "Bear" argument very weak. 
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CascadeMike
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 07:45 PM |
|
|
It kind of looks like my 100 pound Black Lab. Anyone ever think dog or is it to little?
What the... Did you see that? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 08:25 PM |
|
|
yeh , i thought dog, but legs too thick......
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CascadeMike
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 08:36 PM |
|
|
Ya true that Rod. Dogs legs get gradually skinnier as you go down. These ones are the same thickness the whole time. Which just made me realize that if this was a BF then wouldnt it be like a human where the Quad muscle is thicker then the calf? Therefore not being the same thickness. Or if they were arms, then the Bicep and Tricep would be thicker then forearm?
What the... Did you see that? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithcd
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: October 27th, 2007 10:06 PM |
|
|
I put a post last night(here i think) of "Who's on First);remember ABBOT AND COSTELLO? We keep going
back to 1st-3rd-1st-2nd-3rd; we are getting wore out here.
Somebody from bfro or admin or LEE make a decision;I'm getting dizzy    
Clayton T |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rkennedy
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 02:46 AM |
|
|
| WOW!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rkennedy
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 02:47 AM |
|
|
| i would like to know who has seen a bigfoot or sasquatch and watch it ????????? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanne
Approved
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 03:02 AM |
|
|
I know this guy named Robert who says he has!
Jeanne |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 03:30 AM |
|
|
not this little black duck...nah, not the bigfoot or sasquatch..... why, have you???????
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 07:42 AM |
|
|
I hope Tom conveys this message to his brother or whoever's controlling the cam photos now.
You have to publish all the photos on the film to be taken seriously.
If they show other bears, the timer readings will be interesting, and it may also tell us something about the sensitivity and reset speed of the camera.
If they show no activity near that particular tree, at least we'd get a clear view of that zone and shed some light on this "primate's head, rock, shadow or root" debate.
By not publishing all of them, you're editing. I deliberately do not say censoring because I don't believe your motives are devious.
But editing is not science. Either you want to be a serious researcher or not. Which is it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rod
Unregistered
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 08:14 AM |
|
|
totally agree with pragmatic....there must not be any suggestion or suspicion of censoring or something dodgy going on....i can't help but feel that we are our own worst enemies in some ways...any 'mystery' photo of an animal vaguely resembling a bigfoot, many of us automatically decide its a photo of a bigfoot and start defending from there...some are so desperate to 'prove' its existence, they trade off objectivity. pragmatic makes a great point, if the 'other'photos show bear/cubs say 1or 2 minute prior or after the mystery photos were taken, it tells us something....we really should not be having this conversation, because we should be looking at all the photos...also, I am told that matt ********** from the bfro has said in an interview with the media that jacobs creature is that of a probable primate....can someone confirm whether this is true or false please and was he speaking from his personal view, which if so, is his right and fair enough...or was he speaking as a representative of the bfro..if so, and it is based on the 2 photos, I am dumbfounded.....
why has matts last name been automatically asterixed out...just curious...considering he established the bfro in 95 and as far as I know is still involved.
(Edited by rod)
for what its worth |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ctpatti
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: October 28th, 2007 10:29 AM |
|
|
HI,
New poster here and While brand new at BFRO I have watched these critters many times and IMHO it's probably a bear. It just doesn't look like any juvenile I've seen. While it could be a "teenage" Sasquatch I am really leaning towards bear.
Where's the MAMA of the first 2 cubs? Any Mom bear worth her salt would clear the area if Sasquatch was moving in and her cubs would probably tree or take off with her. So is this then the mother of the 2 cubs skinny and in poor shape from feeding them? I hope we get an answer soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rkennedy
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 04:57 AM |
|
|
Ok here we go what i will be doing comes from the point of what me and my wife have seen and what i have done in the feild and the things that i have observed .
Let me start off with this, I think that there has been way too many socalled experts and way too much talk about what people think they know without having observed and spent time with these animals. All you have seen are three photos. And most of you have been divided on things that you do not even know about. I am not saying that noone here has not seen or observed sasquatches but let alone bears in their natural habitat. I have asked a simple question, how many of you have seen or observed bigfoot or sasquatch? I truly do not think some or most of you took these questions to be serious. I have waited for several days to ask the second question, How many of you have seen a bear and observed them in their habitat? Now if we could have got to this point, the third question would have come. How many of you know about photography? And how photography works? So please do not become defensive or unrully but become responsible. The questions that I have been asking is the same question that Matt has asked. What do you guys think? So we use the word "Think" to think about our responses and behaviour. Now, I have spent time in the field the time has not gone in vain, but has allowed me and my family and freinds to become very knowledgable and have understanding about our habitat , the way we conduct ourselves in their habitat, and the way they conduct themselves in their surroundings. What I am trying to put the point across here is that everyone is entitled to their opinions but best of all, an educated answer is better than some of us that have no clue about what we are talking about. Yes, the discussion board allows us to chat back and forth, but what I have been reading and watching has not been edifying or helpful. And has become more like armchair squatching. I praise those who go out into the field and spend much time and who have done the leg work that allows them to give an educated answer that allows us to learn about what these creatures are.
Now I am not going to break down the pictures that has already been done on points of this and points of that. I have had phone calls to my house and I am very thankful that Katie has called. Because many things have lined up in a primate behaviour which allows us to have a better understanding and knowledge about sasquatches or bigfoot. Okay, so, It has been suggested to me not to comment on the photos, if I do not comment on the photos I feel that it would be an injustice. We have all looked and looked again at these photos, and we have all made our suggestions. But there are a few things that are sitting there about these creatures that are in these photos. It is hard for anyone of us to make a positive identification on one way or the other. We have experts on bears, but, we have no experts none at all yes we have Jeff Meldrum, the Renny Dehinn, Kratz, Matt, John Bindernagle, Thomas Steinburg, and all the many books that have been written on this subject but I can honestly say we have no experts. Everyone of these people I have mentioned including myself have honestly, fairly, and many others have put allot of work and effort into the understanding and knowledge each one has in thier field of expertise but are not experts. So we all wait for an expert to say bear or sasquatch. Well I have said this before and I will say it again. We have three percent of what we know and that is very helpful, but each and everyday we have 97% of learning. Anyone who has been in the field know how tough it is to learn about these creatures. Most of us are not trying to prove the existence. So the first photo out of the three, I can safely say, It is two bear cubs. The next two photos i can safely say there are characteristic likings too sasquatch/bigfoot. I can also find points that can identify also to a bear. Have I seen skinny bears? Yes. But, not saying it is a bear either. We do not have clear shots of a head or feet, hands or paws. We can all say this or that. But until we become photo experts and can show the clear visibility we cannot sway one way or the other. What I am trying to do people is make something clear. I believe we could have the second best sasquatch photos since Patty and we could have a pretty terrible pictures of a bear. Now for what I have observed in my back yard, and seriously talking, my back yard, And for all the other spots I have for observing these animals. I would love to share the things that I have seen with all of you and heard. So if any of you would like to speak to me you are always a phone call away. So my heart goes out, yes it does have some of the same characteristics that I have seen from the juvenile to mature sasquatches. My heart would love to say to you all that it is a sasquatch/bigfoot. But because of some of the fine points and not being an expert I cannot say that it is. My final point is this, I cannot say that it is a bear.
PS If I can help any of you to enhance your abilities in the field work please get in touch. Ask around, you can find my numbers.
RKennedy |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 05:20 AM |
|
|
"My heart would love to say to you all that it is a sasquatch/bigfoot. But because of some of the fine points and not being an expert I cannot say that it is. My final point is this, I cannot say that it is a bear."
Exactly, RKennedy, exactly. What we learn from this and other examples (e.g. Mount Hood) is that game cam evidence is almost always open to interpretation, so much so that it'll be an unlikely source of "final proof".
Nothing has the power to change minds like the Patty film does. In the absence of a body, we need movies of at least the quality of the Jacobs stills. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithcd
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 05:22 AM |
|
|
Whew, i'm trying to uncross my eyes on that one RK(ha,ha).
Good point though; While we're still trying to decipher the photo's we're still back to square 1; just need a better
photo op from the baby or uh-teen bf.
Just sittin here squatchinn away at work till I read more
forums later;wadda you think Bossberg?
Clayton T. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithcd
Unregistered
Joined:
Posts:
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 05:24 AM |
|
|
Hey Prag, do you think some new Thermal Imaging would do it?
clay t. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pragmatic
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 06:06 AM |
|
|
A thermal movie, not stills, you mean? Yes if they came real close, close enough for the camera to pick out facial temperature differences. But would you hang around to take the shots if they did?
There have been some very good game cam photos shot at night, I remember one of a deer watching a diamondback rattler go by - you could even pick out its scale pattern. But these were two well known animals, i.e. we saw what we expected to see, so we didn't need the extra evidence of motion.
Contrast that reaction with what you feel when you look at paddletothesea's "Klamath BF Photos (see his thread). The pictures are crystal clear, you might say magazine quality.
That face is not like any of the BF illustrations I've ever seen. But it's not your average gorilla either. So we BELIEVE bf, or we BELIEVE gorilla, or we start looking for other explanations, maybe it's a smaller ape and we don't have scale to judge its size, maybe this, maybe that. And we arrive at the frustrating conclusion that, because we have no reference point to start from, even a still of this quality doesn't provide proof.
When we watch a movie we take in huge masses of changing information from all over the frame; like leaf / grass sizes, foreground and background distances, apparent speed of movements etc. etc. These help us to build a context for the main subject, the reference point that we need.
As an Englishman I'd say the most effective procedure would be: identify your most credible researcher, be he killmore or kennedy or courtney or whoever, to find you a sasquatch hotspot. Then hire the BBC Wildlife film unit to get the pictures.
Anyone got a couple of million dollars handy? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Squatcher
Unregistered
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 07:53 AM |
|
|
rkennedy wrote:
"PS If I can help any of you to enhance your abilities in the field work please get in touch."
You already have!
I appreciate that you're not making a call on the photos one way or the other. I know that it's too inconclusive, but I think that you are maybe leaning toward it being a Squatch. As am I - based on conversations I've had with you and others who are more knowlegable on the subject.
I agree with you that we need to take more time to become familiar with their habitat, (and ours) and to do the needed research to bring evidence of these animals to the world, so as to ensure their protection in the future.
I'm truly worn out from the debate that's been going on here for the past week or so. I finally got some rest last night, due to the forum being down for the night. LOL
Well, rain kept me from getting out and continuing my education in the field last week, so I'm praying for better conditions. Talk to ya later-
Eric Spinner
BFRO Investigator NJ PA DE |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 10:31 AM |
|
|
I have a question for rkennedy, if you have observed them so extensively, why no pics? Im not being a smartass, I think I am just asking what alot of people would like to ask. Like I said I am asking this with all due respect.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uddawhitemeat
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 101
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uddawhitemeat
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 101
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 02:35 PM |
|
|
Ok i guess ill bite, i was refraining from debating this further becouse quite frankly its been sounding alot like reruns from Reno 911. Altho there are some great posts that i keep refuring back to, to gain better personal knowledge that i can use in the field.
http://www.*****************.com/
Under Video's, images, and sounds
the link, More Stabilizations of he Paterson film, this one Mid-Thorax enhancement devoid of hair with breast movement...
This link is probly the best inhanced videos releaced to date... in one inhancement it shows the hair wear on the ribcage from the arm movement of a bipital. im just not seeing these patterns on the Jacobs photos. Other enhancements give even more clues. But the truth is the Jacobs photos dont give enough definitive evidence and we are really after that in the long run.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the resurchers for all their input , emails and PM's, it has been a long road for many of you, and i truely greatful for all your hard work that was passed to me in such a short time.
RW Kennedy |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uddawhitemeat
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 101
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 02:51 PM |
|
|
Might be better if you were to find photos of bears in a simalar stance or angle and post them to show some that dont 
RW Kennedy |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 02:58 PM |
|
|
Experts; Dr. Meldrum, PA DNR Officers that say they have seen mangy bears and say this sure looks like a sick, mangy bear. And as I stated above if you would check the other thread, I believe it is headed bear comparison photos, there are bear photos that line up perfectly with the position of the Jacobs' photos, actually exennium and Paddletothesea have offered many pics that convinced me even more AFTER I had made up my mind.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulm
Approved
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 281
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 03:04 PM |
|
|
| Ummmm.....I'm curious, why do you all keep debating these pictures? Don't you feel that it is kind of wasted effort? At this point it is very clear that people are split on what they think is in the picture. That means that these pictures will not help in prooving that BF exists. Not trying to be a jerk, just kind of stating facts here. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WVSLICK
Approved
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 03:13 PM |
|
|
Heres the problem, we see the pictures two different ways, your asking me to see something I dont see, and you dont see what I see. I see no buttocks because where you see buttocks I see the side of the bear between the front and rear left legs. What are facts to you are misinterpretations of the photos to me, just as what are facts to me are misinterpretations to you. We could go around about this all day, but in the end we see different things. I respect your opinion, really I do, I just dont see it. In my OPINION it is a bear, I am not nor have I ever tried to tell anyone they were wrong. I may have pointed out what I see or offered my OPINIONS on what others said, but I never disrespected anyone or told them they were wrong or that they were making uneducated guesses. Now thats as close as I can get to answering your question, because basically we are looking at two different things.
RICK R. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rkennedy
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 03:30 PM |
|
|
| call 604 883 2934 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rkennedy
Unregistered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 03:32 PM |
|
|
Posted: October 29th, 2007 04:57 AM
Ok here we go what i will be doing comes from the point of what me and my wife have seen and what i have done in the feild and the things that i have observed .
Let me start off with this, I think that there has been way too many socalled experts and way too much talk about what people think they know without having observed and spent time with these animals. All you have seen are three photos. And most of you have been divided on things that you do not even know about. I am not saying that noone here has not seen or observed sasquatches but let alone bears in their natural habitat. I have asked a simple question, how many of you have seen or observed bigfoot or sasquatch? I truly do not think some or most of you took these questions to be serious. I have waited for several days to ask the second question, How many of you have seen a bear and observed them in their habitat? Now if we could have got to this point, the third question would have come. How many of you know about photography? And how photography works? So please do not become defensive or unrully but become responsible. The questions that I have been asking is the same question that Matt has asked. What do you guys think? So we use the word "Think" to think about our responses and behaviour. Now, I have spent time in the field the time has not gone in vain, but has allowed me and my family and freinds to become very knowledgable and have understanding about our habitat , the way we conduct ourselves in their habitat, and the way they conduct themselves in their surroundings. What I am trying to put the point across here is that everyone is entitled to their opinions but best of all, an educated answer is better than some of us that have no clue about what we are talking about. Yes, the discussion board allows us to chat back and forth, but what I have been reading and watching has not been edifying or helpful. And has become more like armchair squatching. I praise those who go out into the field and spend much time and who have done the leg work that allows them to give an educated answer that allows us to learn about what these creatures are.
Now I am not going to break down the pictures that has already been done on points of this and points of that. I have had phone calls to my house and I am very thankful that Katie has called. Because many things have lined up in a primate behaviour which allows us to have a better understanding and knowledge about sasquatches or bigfoot. Okay, so, It has been suggested to me not to comment on the photos, if I do not comment on the photos I feel that it would be an injustice. We have all looked and looked again at these photos, and we have all made our suggestions. But there are a few things that are sitting there about these creatures that are in these photos. It is hard for anyone of us to make a positive identification on one way or the other. We have experts on bears, but, we have no experts none at all yes we have Jeff Meldrum, the Renny Dehinn, Kratz, Matt, John Bindernagle, Thomas Steinburg, and all the many books that have been written on this subject but I can honestly say we have no experts. Everyone of these people I have mentioned including myself have honestly, fairly, and many others have put allot of work and effort into the understanding and knowledge each one has in thier field of expertise but are not experts. So we all wait for an expert to say bear or sasquatch. Well I have said this before and I will say it again. We have three percent of what we know and that is very helpful, but each and everyday we have 97% of learning. Anyone who has been in the field know how tough it is to learn about these creatures. Most of us are not trying to prove the existence. So the first photo out of the three, I can safely say, It is two bear cubs. The next two photos i can safely say there are characteristic likings too sasquatch/bigfoot. I can also find points that can identify also to a bear. Have I seen skinny bears? Yes. But, not saying it is a bear either. We do not have clear shots of a head or feet, hands or paws. We can all say this or that. But until we become photo experts and can show the clear visibility we cannot sway one way or the other. What I am trying to do people is make something clear. I believe we could have the second best sasquatch photos since Patty and we could have a pretty terrible pictures of a bear. Now for what I have observed in my back yard, and seriously talking, my back yard, And for all the other spots I have for observing these animals. I would love to share the things that I have seen with all of you and heard. So if any of you would like to speak to me you are always a phone call away. So my heart goes out, yes it does have some of the same characteristics that I have seen from the juvenile to mature sasquatches. My heart would love to say to you all that it is a sasquatch/bigfoot. But because of some of the fine points and not being an expert I cannot say that it is. My final point is this, I cannot say that it is a bear.
PS If I can help any of you to enhance your abilities in the field work please get in touch. Ask around, you can find my numbers.
RKennedy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeffm@willtrav
Approved
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: October 29th, 2007 05:01 PM |
|
|
I think it's a juvenile BF. It would be dang near impossible to convince me otherwise.
Deo Vindice |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
